Judicial

On the surface, Presidents Bush and Obama have shown little interest in exercising their extraordinary presidential authority to issue pardons and commute sentences.  Many of us who support a robust exercise of executive clemency have been disappointed and disturbed by this inaction. But thanks to Monday’s Washington Post-ProPublica story, we now know that a significant part of the problem stems from a grossly inept Office of Pardon Attorney (OPA) at the U.S. Justice Department. Congress must investigate this vitally important taxpayer-funded office immediately.
 
According to the Post-ProPublica story, the Bush administration was interested in finding deserving candidates for pardons or sentence commutations. Bush had campaigned as a “compassionate conservative” and questioned the practice of sending nonviolent drug offenders to prison for long terms. Clarence Aaron seemed the perfect candidate for a second chance, having been sentenced to life in prison for his first offense, a non-violent drug charge. The missing pieces holding back Aaron’s plea for mercy fell into place when the U.S. Attorney’s office that prosecuted him and the judge who sentenced him both told the Pardon Attorney’s office that they supported Aaron’s request for a reduced sentence.

A group of House Democrats has introduced a remarkably misnamed “People’s Rights Amendment” that, if adopted, would undercut the rights of Americans and transform our society beyond recognition, and deliver an unprecedented body blow to the American economy. This ill-considered proposal would limit application of constitutional rights to “natural persons,” eliminating such rights for all corporate entities. It reveals a stunning disrespect for the established constitutional architecture that has served this country well for over 200 years.

Corporations are, of course, the bugbear of the left wing and a target of the Occupy Wall Street crowd. Poor economic performance is blamed on corporate greed — rather than the business cycle and deleterious impacts of ever more onerous federal regulations — and tax incentives offered to companies as inducements to investment are “corporate welfare.”

The truth is that corporations, large and small, are the foundation of our economy and the building blocks of our society. Before the law recognized, around 400 years ago, business corporations as entities with rights separate and apart from their owners or managers, anyone going into business risked everything. A failure could mean personal ruin, with creditors seizing not merely “business” property but anything the entrepreneur owned, and even imprisonment for debt.

On Monday, the Senate confirmed Paul Watford's nomination to the 7th seat on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The nomination seemed vulnerable to a filibuster but eventually succeeded by a vote of 61-34.

Yet Watford’s confirmation is unfortunately the exception that proves the rule.

The 5th seat on that same court has been vacant for 2699 days, or since 2004. Obstructionist tactics increasingly prevent a vast number of critical judicial and other presidentially appointed positions from being confirmed—so much so that many potential nominees refuse even to subject themselves to the process.

The most powerful of these obstructionist tactics is the filibuster, which is used by the minority to force the majority to reach a 60-vote cloture threshold. Often, the simple threat of the filibuster stymies a nomination from proceeding.

As The Hill reported Wednesday, Arizona Republican Senator John McCain appears to be back in the game on campaign finance reform, and he couldn’t have come at a better time.
 
McCain, who thought he had tamped down the issue with his landmark 2002 law banning soft money, is talking with several Democrats, including Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), the author of the latest bill aimed at SuperPAC transparency. His presence in this important conversation will hopefully help shed more light on the increasingly important issue of public access to information on SuperPAC donors. As a respected member of Congress, McCain’s presence will also increase the activity of lobbyists who are already keeping close tabs on SuperPAC transparency legislation circulating both chambers.
 
The Supreme Court’s 2010 ruling on Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission—a ruling that completely changed the political influence landscape going forward. Allowing organizations to give unlimited amounts of money to Political Action Committees (PACs)—ultimately helping a candidate into office—feels a lot like secret influence peddling which is something that we can all agree is not a good thing.

There is a group of criminals, on Native American lands, who assault, rape, and abuse Native women and they can’t be arrested. These criminals are non-Native men. They don’t have to face a judge, spend any time behind bars, or be hounded by a criminal record. Instead they remain free to go after the next victim or the same one, time after time. Congress, the one legal body able to fix this problem, could let these injustices continue if they don’t act.

The epidemic of violence against women on tribal lands is staggering; 34% of American Indian and Alaska Native women will be raped in their lifetimes, 39% will experience domestic violence, and as a Department of Justice study found, non-Indians commit 88% of these heinous crimes. Tribal justice systems are the most appropriate entities to root out these criminals, yet they are the ones with tied hands—restricted by antiquated jurisdictional laws established the U.S. government limiting tribes from prosecuting non-Native criminals.

Prior to adjourning in April, the Senate reauthorized the pivotal Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), which for many of us who work in women’s health should have been a no-brainer. We urge the House to swiftly pass this version of the reauthorization as well.  Let’s face it: few congressional bills have delivered so greatly on their promises. Since its passage in the mid-1990s, according to the Department of Justice (DOJ), incidences of domestic violence are down by more than 50 percent.

But VAWA, once a bill with bipartisan support, was threatened this year by political agendas and stigmatizing politicking. Opponents sought to arbitrarily limit the number of immigrant women who can seek relief from violence, impose substantial barriers when the victim is Native American but her abuser is not, and ignore violence against gay, lesbian, and transgender victims. These approaches further stigmatize campaigns aimed at particular populations, and they do nothing to help women get the counseling and shelter they need to escape abusive relationships.

Ending violence against women and protecting victims of crime and labor exploitation shouldn’t be controversial to anyone. These goals are so universally shared that when Congress passed the Violence Against Women Act, or VAWA, in 1994, and reauthorized it every six years thereafter, no one batted an eyelash. But this year, the well-worn tradition of reauthorizing this essential legislation has turned into an opportunity to attack women and endanger victims of crime.
 
Although the Senate has passed a bipartisan bill reauthorizing VAWA and strengthening protections for victims of crime, House Republicans have introduced H.R. 4970, which drastically undercuts existing protections.

This week, the U.S. Supreme Court justices heard arguments regarding Arizona’s immigration law. The way I see it, Arizona is simply trying to enforce our basic immigration laws that make it illegal to be in our country without a visa or proper citizenship. With nearly 12 million illegal immigrants in this country, it is clear that our system is broken and the federal government needs to enact and enforce strict immigration laws in order to protect the citizens of our country. The problem with illegal immigration has gone on too long, and the Arizona law is an attempt from states to address a problem that the federal government has not.

The law would allow state and local law enforcement in Arizona to enforce federal immigration statutes, but it has been struck down at the district and appeals court levels. This hearing is a product of the Obama Administration filing a legal challenge against the new Arizona immigration law, originally claiming it is unjust because it will lead to “racial profiling.” However, the Obama Justice Department is now arguing the law violates the Constitution’s supremacy clause, which states that the Constitution, federal laws and treaties supersede state laws.

The cherry-picking of harsh Supreme Court questions about the Affordable Care Act has fed a misleading impression that health reform is on life support or perhaps already deceased. Here’s the reality -- health reform continues. Virtually every state is now engaged in using federal grants to build state exchanges and expand Medicaid – a process that will persist in some form even if the Supreme Court strikes reform.  

The reality on the ground is fuelling reform. Large insurers welcome the opportunity to end freeloading and the new revenue from individual premiums and federal government tax credits to cover everybody. Meanwhile, hospitals are eager to escape from the financial weight of caring for 53 million uninsured Americans, and family physicians and skilled nurses welcome new pools of patients with coverage for needed care without being buried in unnecessary paperwork. And large employers look forward to a day when they won’t be used as a piggy bank to pay for the costs of treating the uninsured – costs that can amount to $1,000 for every employee – and to reimburse medical providers for quality rather than driving up the number of services.

Whatever the flaws of health reform, many stakeholders prefer it over the disaster that existed previously and see it as a starting point for further reform to address its weaknesses.

On April 25 the United States Supreme Court will hear arguments on the constitutionality of Arizona’s Senate Bill 1070, which passed the Arizona Legislature in 2010 but has never taken effect because federal judges have blocked it.

The decision facing the United States Supreme Court is whether they will support the right of the people of Arizona to uphold the rule of law, or side with President Obama and his pandering to foreign governments who are at odds with the American people on the issue of illegal immigration.